DBWI: Switch the fates of the two Roman Empires

[Whiteshore]

As we all know, the Eastern Roman Empire historically fell to a mixture of barbarian invasions and a resurgent Sassanid Empire while the Western Roman Empire largely weathered the storm and even tried to retake areas of the East, lasting until Magyars who adhered to Manichaeism conquered Rome in 1472, but what if the Western Roman Empire fell and the Eastern Roman Empire survived? What PODs might be needed for such a scenario to occur? How would such a scenario affect the history of the world?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Parthian Empire always prevented the Eastern Romans from focusing their full military might on the Danubian and Sudanese frontiers. Perhaps if the Persian rebels win the Battle of Hormozdgan a more pro-Roman government could come to power on Iranian Plateau, that could free up a lot of Roman forces to halt the Gothic and Bantu migrations. And of course once repelled in the east the German tribes will try their luck in the west, and you then just have to have them be more successful there*.

Edit: *and it's not like the west was impregnable, as they did lose Britannia to the Suebi

 

[WotanArgead]

As we all know, the Eastern Roman Empire historically fell to a mixture of barbarian invasions and a resurgent Sassanid Empire while the Western Roman Empire largely weathered the storm and even tried to retake areas of the East, lasting until Magyars who adhered to Manichaeism conquered Rome in 1472, but what if the Western Roman Empire fell and the Eastern Roman Empire survived? What PODs might be needed for such a scenario to occur? How would such a scenario affect the history of the world?

As you probably know, Atilla died during another expedition to the East. If he could win, he inevitably began to plunder the West (you can not feed the horde from the East). Complete victory is unlikely, but it inevitably provoked new migrations. The Empire of the Huns fall apart immediately after his death, but then there will be nobody to restrain the Franks, Burgundians, Ostgoths, Gepids of others. There are examples of barbarian states created on the basis of Roman law. So feudalism begins to speak Germanic languages.

 

[Whiteshore]

As you probably know, Atilla died during another expedition to the East. If he could win, he inevitably began to plunder the West (you can not feed the horde from the East). Complete victory is unlikely, but it inevitably provoked new migrations. The Empire of the Huns fall apart immediately after his death, but then there will be nobody to restrain the Franks, Burgundians, Ostgoths, Gepids of others. There are examples of barbarian states created on the basis of Roman law. So feudalism begins to speak Germanic languages.

What about the Sassanians? How much then were they responsible for the ERE's collapse? Was the Sassanian invasion merely the final nail on the ERE's coffin?

 

[WotanArgead]

What about the Sassanians? How much then were they responsible for the ERE's collapse? Was the Sassanian invasion merely the final nail on the ERE's coffin?

Without the barbarians, Sassanides do not have the strength to break the East. I think that their fate will be decided by the third force, but what kind?

 

[Whiteshore]

Without the barbarians, Sassanides do not have the strength to break the East. I think that their fate will be decided by the third force, but what kind?

So, you're of the opinion Sassanian Persia was merely the last nail of the coffin for the ERE?

 

[WotanArgead]

So, you're of the opinion Sassanian Persia was merely the last nail of the coffin for the ERE?

Yes. In this case it is necessary to take into account that Persia itself was also cracking at the seams.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Out of Character: I don't see how the timeline for this DBWIF could even work.

 

[Marklin]

OOC: so what is the West Roman equivalent to the Ottoman Empire?

 

[LSCatilina]

The immediate outcome would be a larger distinction between Romania* : people tend to forget that western provinces weren't that prosperous after the IIIrd century crisis, safe for Africa, Spain and parts of Italy, or even this much Roman (Adrian III passed actually more time fending off Mauri incursions than dealing with Fulgens' usurpation in Africa).
While Romania managed to salvage what it could (at the cost of giving up provincial administration to Romano-Barbarians militia) IOTL, ITTL, without the permanance of a Roman state to hold it together, we could witness an actually worse situation for Europe : I doubt you'd have enough structures to really allow the usual super-kingdom build-up you had in Balkans and Syria, so no Gothic or Alemanic hegemony (would it be temporarily) to provide a smooth transition to post-classical world; and rather an ensemble of "provincial" kingdoms on which WRE (probably shrinking to be an "imperial" kingdom of Italy) would have little to no direct control on.

I know that on this board there's a tendency to say that, because it would be richer (which isn't that obvious on the long term, while truer in a first time), ERE would be able to at least swallow up part of the WRE (or what would remain of it) but the Sassanian pressure isn't going anywhere, even if I could see Gepid Mosesia or Lombard Illyricum (if ERE survives weakened) or ERE directly being able to push back (at a cost) pontic chiefdoms.

Eventually, we could see a growing gap economically and politically between West and East, especially if the ERE manages to do what Barbarian kingdoms did by captating Vistulian and Baltic trade (There's the argument that Barbarians managed to do so and make Constantinople, Thebes and Sinope trade hubs because of their historical relation with these zones, and maybe "western Barbarians" could pull it, but it strikes me as shoehorned as Barbarians were eventually heavily hellenized peoples), depriving Barbarian kingdoms from a clear commercial edge (maybe an African or North Sea trade? But if ERE manages to pull an WRE, they would have trouble to do so).

On the other hand we could have been spared the comparison between the post-classical Roman Empire and the Shogunate (I'm looking at you, Imperial Rule II or any Contrarian Interactive game for that matter), and the cliché about how Greeks lost civic mindset and being cowards submitting to Barbarians, so it's not that of a bad TL on this regard.

@SealTheRealDeal
Suebi (on which the Suebi element was more or less surrounded by other peoples, and that wouldn't ask much for having a PoD where Suebeland is called Frakland or Saxland) were more or less pushed back by Romano-Alemanic armies, with the idea of conquering back Britain that was let to herself before Gaelic takeover. It kinda backfired, but without Roman withdrawal and "strong motivation" from Romans (the carrot being subsides and land, the stick being...a stick), I don't think they would have been able to pull this and to swallow up the Roman statelets in Britain.
Eventually, we might have witnessed a weird mix in post-imperial Britain, with Gaels, Brittons, Romans and maybe some Germans (probably Franks or Saxons) : apart what happened in Moesia, with the Gepid/"Sarmatian"/Causasian/Turkic mix, quickly tookover by Goths, I'm not sure you'd have an IOTL equivalent.

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

Edit: *and it's not like the west was impregnable, as they did lose Britannia to the Suebi

Just because King Arthur was a Suebi doesn't mean Britannia was conquered by the Suebi. It was more of a confederation of multiple tribes of which a few Swabians were highly influential. Franks, Saxons, even Gaels were involved. It was more beneficial for post-Roman towns to ally with the "Suebi", as Artorius did, than to keep their Celtic or Roman identities.

 

[LSCatilina]

Just because King Arthur was a Suebi doesn't mean Britannia was conquered by the Suebi. It was more of a confederation of multiple tribes of which a few Swabians were highly influential. Franks, Saxons, even Gaels were involved. It was more beneficial for post-Roman towns to ally with the "Suebi", as Artorius did, than to keep their Celtic or Roman identities.

It's not that clear that Arthur was a Suebi (if it even meant something besides a policial-civic identity of a mix of ethnicities, including Romans tough). Artorius is after all a Britto-Roman name, and it's more than plausible we might have a local Britto-Roman leader that took Germanic levies (technically foederati answering to the emperor, but in fact ready for anything) to carve itself a kingdom out of the ashes of Roman Britain.
That Saint Feran couldn't tell the difference three centuries afterwards doesn't make it more certain (Antonius of Arles mention an Arturio of Britain, likely Artorius, as a "king beyond the Sea, ruling on Brittons" which is admittedly non-descript but isn't labelled as Barbarian strictly speaking compared to Alberic of Linnia), even if I agree that by "recruiting" Germans (possibly Suebi) he probably was considered as a Suebi leader, if partially.

On the other hand, it shows the possible diference between a Barbarian takeover in the East and in the West, where identitarian lines would be blurred : who knows if Alamans kingdoms woulnd't lead to a more or less important fusion of population along a Roman-Barbarian identity (altough I'm not sure that this fusion would be that clearly at the benefit of Barbarians as in Britain, maybe Alamans would end up with a sophisticated dynastical-political identity where they would assume both Roman and Barbarian identitarian markers?) instead of sub-imperial cultures (or identitarian dynasties as IOTL in eastern Romania)? After all Alamans and some Franks did were part of WRE command and provincial structures even before the fall of ERE or establshment of confini, in the IVth century.

 

[LSCatilina]

OOC: so what is the West Roman equivalent to the Ottoman Empire?

Apparently a Manichean Hungarian Epire (tm)

 

[Marklin]

Apparently a Manichean Hungarian Epire (tm)

OOC: hmm. Lovely.

 

[Whiteshore]

While Romania managed to salvage what it could (at the cost of giving up provincial administration to Romano-Barbarians militia) IOTL, ITTL, without the permanance of a Roman state to hold it together, we could witness an actually worse situation for Europe : I doubt you'd have enough structures to really allow the usual super-kingdom build-up you had in Balkans and Syria, so no Gothic or Alemanic hegemony (would it be temporarily) to provide a smooth transition to post-classical world; and rather an ensemble of "provincial" kingdoms on which WRE (probably shrinking to be an "imperial" kingdom of Italy) would have little to no direct control on.

Well, the proximitic of Syria to Sassanian Persia (which actually ruled Syria for a while) was probably another factor in why there was a "super-kingdom" in Syria, for starters.

 

[trajen777]

The key for the West that left it devastated was the loss of Africa. This was a very profitable province that paid for a large section of the Roman army. At this time you had repeated attacks in Gaul which left the tax system in disarray, as is Spain. England was always a break even province -- so Africa was the breadbasket and financial center of WRE. You need three things to happen
1. Gaseric defeated by Bonifacius,( either with Gaseric invading Africa or invited by Bonifacius ?), or defeated in Spain.
2. If not 1 -- Then him defeated by the combined ERE and the WRE invasion (this was the last gasp of the WRE). If this had worked - and it should have - they would have had the $$ to support he army and things would have been very different.
3. You need a succession that had legitimacy.
If you solve the loss of Africa - then you have a good chance to stabilize Gaul --

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, the proximitic of Syria to Sassanian Persia (which actually ruled Syria for a while) was probably another factor in why there was a "super-kingdom" in Syria, for starters.

True, altough calling Syria a super-kingdom is a bit on the formal side admittedly : the weird mix of Romans, Syrians, Jews and Vandals technically obeyed to whoever ruled in Antioch, and for a time Vandals did before collapsing under their own weight.. It's arguably more or less the faults of Romans and Goths, arguably : while the first didn't minded Vandals beating up Sassanians, they really didn't appreciated the Vandalic takeover of the region and refused to really acknowledge it until it was too late and Goths took over.
It wouldn't have asked much to have a Vandal power similar to what Goths or Alans did, but it's another discussion there.

-snip-

OOC : This is a Double What If : it's a speculative thread about how, in a different timeline, people would conceptualize how events did happened historically, and assume what would have happened. A smoked mirror, if you will.

 

[trajen777]

True, altough calling Syria a super-kingdom is a bit on the formal side admittedly : the weird mix of Romans, Syrians, Jews and Vandals technically obeyed to whoever ruled in Antioch, and for a time Vandals did before collapsing under their own weight.. It's arguably more or less the faults of Romans and Goths, arguably : while the first didn't minded Vandals beating up Sassanians, they really didn't appreciated the Vandalic takeover of the region and refused to really acknowledge it until it was too late and Goths took over.
It wouldn't have asked much to have a Vandal power similar to what Goths or Alans did, but it's another discussion there.


OOC : This is a Double What If : it's a speculative thread about how, in a different timeline, people would conceptualize how events did happened historically, and assume what would have happened. A smoked mirror, if you will.

Sorry did not read it correctly -- was on a cc and was distracted